‘Gone Tomorrow – the Hidden Life of Garbage,' Directed by Heather Rodgers (2006)
INTRODUCTION
This film, based on the book written by Heather Rodgers, focuses on the overwhelming connections between industrial production and the ‘disposable lifestyle’ of successful countries with a striking advantage of visual stimulation over her book’s provocative words. The film’s central dogma of the United States’ surplus of advertisement temptation, cheap production, and copious waste is supported by the simple fact that over the past 30 years, trash accumulation has doubled…leading you into the idea that society has been maimed with deception under the umbrella of “convenience.”
And, trash now seems to find a way to be disposed of outside of our own borders since we’ve filled them almost to their capacities, and with few considerations for the regulations already in place (e.g. radioactive material, electronics, etc.). Society has chosen to ignore this simply because they’re comfortable and set in their ways and have gotten used to the fact that once it’s put in their trash can, they pay money for it to be disposed of – not asking to where it goes, and certainly not with consideration that amounts of trash are a problem and will soon fill landfills.
RESPONSIBILITY
Snapshots of trash heaps might not have been the primary point of Rodgers’ influence, but persuading an audience that they are the cause and have the responsibility to find a solution just might have. Leaving people with the reality of cause-and-effect hopefully also left them feeling that their individual decisions have been flawed and that they should be aware of all the goods they buy in regards to their materials/packaging, reusability, and where they will go when they’re no longer usable.
And it’s not only about the individual consumer’s responsibility to make a change – they are provided these goods which have already been made and have expiration dates, so what happens when no one decides to buy them? Wouldn’t that only lead to more trash accumulation with unused goods? And who has a say in what they’re made out of, what they’re packaged in? Do consumers get a vote on what they’d like to see in regards to ingredients, packaging, and prices, or are these decided for us, leaving us to find the brands that suit our needs and wants? Whoever said that spending your money is equivalent to voting was completely on track.
CAUSES THAT DETERMINE YOUR PURCHASES AND LEAD TO PROBLEMS
Obsolescence of products, which in itself is fed by media, informational, and cultural pressures, giving way to newer ones certainly doesn’t help either. What ever happen to the days when people actually took the time to repair their broken electronics, toys, et cetera instead of just replacing them with new ones? Financial stability and convenience are the two elements that make that decision easier.
Economical and technological influences and problems also get wound up in this net of obsolescence, leading to the escalating problem of a lack of handiness and training to refurbishing goods so that consumers may reuse instead of replacing at the slightest failure or flaw. The throwaway essence of our current society initiated and continues to feed this problem, while our thrown-away goods continue to grow in numbers alongside their replacements, generally decreasing the percentage of goods that can be replaced or re-used. Product aesthetics, advertising, and packaging play a part in this problem as well with their enticing features and seemingly disposable lifetimes.
Unfortunately “used” is a term that most people don’t like to be associated with or purchase goods that are because we’ve been brought up with the idea that “new and fresh” were affordable to us; these new products are the most “clean and acceptable” to prove status and the consumer’s ability to purchase something that isn’t tainted by another’s use. But this mentality needs to be altered: prove to consumers that their “new” lifestyle is more flawed that the one where they reuse materials, goods, and recycle packaging. So how do you do this? It is hard to not want to buy new clothes, new shoes, or the latest electronics, but the distinction between “need” and “want” are crucial to using the products that we already have in masses available to us. Yes, trends dictate what makes us “fit in” with the rest of society, but why not understand that there are other means of happiness and sustainability when you think simplistically? Part of me things that persuading those of the Gilded Age might be easier than persuading teenagers of today…
GOOD CITIZENS
The disposable cardboard packaging sent to recycling bins makes buyers feel like they’re “doing their part” in recycling materials and being “good citizens,” but the major flaw in the overall recycling process is the fact that few materials used (based on price and convenience) are actually reusable. The two top ones, aluminum and glass, are infrequently used, but should be used more often due to their extremely successful recycling capacity and reusability.
But the actuality of just burying trash and forgetting about it continues to also fuel the obsession with continuing our overproduced and overextended society. Convenience, time, and costs are what keep the cycle continuing, feeding the fast-paced supply and demand of our work-centered lives. And with our constant desire to fulfill our work demands, we get caught up in the ‘best interest’ arguments of corporate producers. It’s almost like THEY are making our busy lives easier and we owe our thanks to them for the convenient products that they offer for us to live our busy lives. But what we don’t question beyond this is where the products came from, how did they arrive at the store where we’re buying them, how were the workers that made this treated, what effects do their ingredients really have on us, and numerous others. The powers of non-confrontation and suggestion are contained under the umbrella of convenience that these companies and products provide us.
And this brings me to the lasting effects that the film had on me to seek out additional information. The American Plastics Council bears a significant amount of weight in the use, regulation, disposal, and general process of using plastics. But what the film left me wondering is how the APC affects the media and the perspective of plastics that is delivered to our society through goods and advertisements. They clearly pull a lot of weight for promoting the use of plastics, but how much do they deceive the consumers?
We understand and take advantage of their convenience, but what we don’t know is how they are truly affecting our health. So how is the APC’s relationship with the public affected by groups like those in Vermont who initiated and enacted the ban on throwaway bottles (Keep America Beautiful, Inc.)? Do they merely look over such radical groups or do they target them and try to disprove them? What if this movement spread over the entire Northeast United States and moved down the Eastern seaboard? What would the APC have to say and what would they do to stop it or persuade the followers to continue using plastics?
These questions seem trivial, but when they’re put into action, change is bound to happen, even if it is only on a community level. That community level will spread to the county, and then statewide. From there, press is bound to make the story heard and get more people questioning or acting on their questions. It’s just a matter of finding that inspiration to get communities to look past the products daily conveniences in their busy schedules and towards the future of their community. It’s no longer just trying to find time to do our own part around our homes, but making the effort to start the change now.
CONCLUSION
So once your brain is spinning with thoughts of how much waste you produce every day, where it goes, what you could have done to prevent it, and areas where you could have bought used materials instead of new, you’re left thinking of where it all started: how do you persuade corporations to make changes from their convenient and cheap production methods?
Clearly the effects on environment isn’t enough, even though they’re boasting about their ‘green’ ways to consumers for enticement to buy, but finding a way to persuade them with cheaper production is always a way to make them change. The fact that saving money overrides saving the planet is an absolute monstrosity. How did things get this way? Did they spiral out of control when industrialization took over the country? And how do you tell a country, let alone the world, to slow down and look at what we’ve done? How do you open their eyes to this and make them believe that there’s no going back and certainly there is a very bleak future ahead, if any, if we keep things the way they are?
Clearly this film has left me not only asking a lot of questions about trash disposal, the integrity of our planet, and our future, but also about the effect that leaders can have on the world in making this problem lessen and making it available for us to still have a future. And maybe this is out of the box from the thoughts just about trash, but why hasn’t there been a mass movement to fixing even the tiniest of problems? Scientists and experts can preach reports, facts, and figures until they’re blue in the face, but not until the net of inter-connected corporations decide to step down and make a widespread change are things going to look better.
So for right now, Rodgers left me and the rest of her audience on the road to personal intervention: buying products that are thought to be sustainable from production to disposal/reuse, as well as spreading the word or making the issue more widely known in communities. It would have been slightly more helpful to know a few more ways that I could personally help my waste accumulation and disposal practices, as well as other non-blatant examples (e.g. plastic bottle usage) that need more attention. Overall, the film brought a good light to the issue, but it left me wanting to know more – which can be a good thing, leaving the audience to seek out more information, but providing more examples of intercession would have been more effective.
INTRODUCTION
This film, based on the book written by Heather Rodgers, focuses on the overwhelming connections between industrial production and the ‘disposable lifestyle’ of successful countries with a striking advantage of visual stimulation over her book’s provocative words. The film’s central dogma of the United States’ surplus of advertisement temptation, cheap production, and copious waste is supported by the simple fact that over the past 30 years, trash accumulation has doubled…leading you into the idea that society has been maimed with deception under the umbrella of “convenience.”
And, trash now seems to find a way to be disposed of outside of our own borders since we’ve filled them almost to their capacities, and with few considerations for the regulations already in place (e.g. radioactive material, electronics, etc.). Society has chosen to ignore this simply because they’re comfortable and set in their ways and have gotten used to the fact that once it’s put in their trash can, they pay money for it to be disposed of – not asking to where it goes, and certainly not with consideration that amounts of trash are a problem and will soon fill landfills.
RESPONSIBILITY
Snapshots of trash heaps might not have been the primary point of Rodgers’ influence, but persuading an audience that they are the cause and have the responsibility to find a solution just might have. Leaving people with the reality of cause-and-effect hopefully also left them feeling that their individual decisions have been flawed and that they should be aware of all the goods they buy in regards to their materials/packaging, reusability, and where they will go when they’re no longer usable.
And it’s not only about the individual consumer’s responsibility to make a change – they are provided these goods which have already been made and have expiration dates, so what happens when no one decides to buy them? Wouldn’t that only lead to more trash accumulation with unused goods? And who has a say in what they’re made out of, what they’re packaged in? Do consumers get a vote on what they’d like to see in regards to ingredients, packaging, and prices, or are these decided for us, leaving us to find the brands that suit our needs and wants? Whoever said that spending your money is equivalent to voting was completely on track.
CAUSES THAT DETERMINE YOUR PURCHASES AND LEAD TO PROBLEMS
Obsolescence of products, which in itself is fed by media, informational, and cultural pressures, giving way to newer ones certainly doesn’t help either. What ever happen to the days when people actually took the time to repair their broken electronics, toys, et cetera instead of just replacing them with new ones? Financial stability and convenience are the two elements that make that decision easier.
Economical and technological influences and problems also get wound up in this net of obsolescence, leading to the escalating problem of a lack of handiness and training to refurbishing goods so that consumers may reuse instead of replacing at the slightest failure or flaw. The throwaway essence of our current society initiated and continues to feed this problem, while our thrown-away goods continue to grow in numbers alongside their replacements, generally decreasing the percentage of goods that can be replaced or re-used. Product aesthetics, advertising, and packaging play a part in this problem as well with their enticing features and seemingly disposable lifetimes.
Unfortunately “used” is a term that most people don’t like to be associated with or purchase goods that are because we’ve been brought up with the idea that “new and fresh” were affordable to us; these new products are the most “clean and acceptable” to prove status and the consumer’s ability to purchase something that isn’t tainted by another’s use. But this mentality needs to be altered: prove to consumers that their “new” lifestyle is more flawed that the one where they reuse materials, goods, and recycle packaging. So how do you do this? It is hard to not want to buy new clothes, new shoes, or the latest electronics, but the distinction between “need” and “want” are crucial to using the products that we already have in masses available to us. Yes, trends dictate what makes us “fit in” with the rest of society, but why not understand that there are other means of happiness and sustainability when you think simplistically? Part of me things that persuading those of the Gilded Age might be easier than persuading teenagers of today…
GOOD CITIZENS
The disposable cardboard packaging sent to recycling bins makes buyers feel like they’re “doing their part” in recycling materials and being “good citizens,” but the major flaw in the overall recycling process is the fact that few materials used (based on price and convenience) are actually reusable. The two top ones, aluminum and glass, are infrequently used, but should be used more often due to their extremely successful recycling capacity and reusability.
But the actuality of just burying trash and forgetting about it continues to also fuel the obsession with continuing our overproduced and overextended society. Convenience, time, and costs are what keep the cycle continuing, feeding the fast-paced supply and demand of our work-centered lives. And with our constant desire to fulfill our work demands, we get caught up in the ‘best interest’ arguments of corporate producers. It’s almost like THEY are making our busy lives easier and we owe our thanks to them for the convenient products that they offer for us to live our busy lives. But what we don’t question beyond this is where the products came from, how did they arrive at the store where we’re buying them, how were the workers that made this treated, what effects do their ingredients really have on us, and numerous others. The powers of non-confrontation and suggestion are contained under the umbrella of convenience that these companies and products provide us.
And this brings me to the lasting effects that the film had on me to seek out additional information. The American Plastics Council bears a significant amount of weight in the use, regulation, disposal, and general process of using plastics. But what the film left me wondering is how the APC affects the media and the perspective of plastics that is delivered to our society through goods and advertisements. They clearly pull a lot of weight for promoting the use of plastics, but how much do they deceive the consumers?
We understand and take advantage of their convenience, but what we don’t know is how they are truly affecting our health. So how is the APC’s relationship with the public affected by groups like those in Vermont who initiated and enacted the ban on throwaway bottles (Keep America Beautiful, Inc.)? Do they merely look over such radical groups or do they target them and try to disprove them? What if this movement spread over the entire Northeast United States and moved down the Eastern seaboard? What would the APC have to say and what would they do to stop it or persuade the followers to continue using plastics?
These questions seem trivial, but when they’re put into action, change is bound to happen, even if it is only on a community level. That community level will spread to the county, and then statewide. From there, press is bound to make the story heard and get more people questioning or acting on their questions. It’s just a matter of finding that inspiration to get communities to look past the products daily conveniences in their busy schedules and towards the future of their community. It’s no longer just trying to find time to do our own part around our homes, but making the effort to start the change now.
CONCLUSION
So once your brain is spinning with thoughts of how much waste you produce every day, where it goes, what you could have done to prevent it, and areas where you could have bought used materials instead of new, you’re left thinking of where it all started: how do you persuade corporations to make changes from their convenient and cheap production methods?
Clearly the effects on environment isn’t enough, even though they’re boasting about their ‘green’ ways to consumers for enticement to buy, but finding a way to persuade them with cheaper production is always a way to make them change. The fact that saving money overrides saving the planet is an absolute monstrosity. How did things get this way? Did they spiral out of control when industrialization took over the country? And how do you tell a country, let alone the world, to slow down and look at what we’ve done? How do you open their eyes to this and make them believe that there’s no going back and certainly there is a very bleak future ahead, if any, if we keep things the way they are?
Clearly this film has left me not only asking a lot of questions about trash disposal, the integrity of our planet, and our future, but also about the effect that leaders can have on the world in making this problem lessen and making it available for us to still have a future. And maybe this is out of the box from the thoughts just about trash, but why hasn’t there been a mass movement to fixing even the tiniest of problems? Scientists and experts can preach reports, facts, and figures until they’re blue in the face, but not until the net of inter-connected corporations decide to step down and make a widespread change are things going to look better.
So for right now, Rodgers left me and the rest of her audience on the road to personal intervention: buying products that are thought to be sustainable from production to disposal/reuse, as well as spreading the word or making the issue more widely known in communities. It would have been slightly more helpful to know a few more ways that I could personally help my waste accumulation and disposal practices, as well as other non-blatant examples (e.g. plastic bottle usage) that need more attention. Overall, the film brought a good light to the issue, but it left me wanting to know more – which can be a good thing, leaving the audience to seek out more information, but providing more examples of intercession would have been more effective.